tv [untitled] November 21, 2012 4:00am-4:30am PST
there is coverage through a 24-hour period, taking into consideration when people are sick and out for vacation, it becomes a large expense to a hotel; we anticipated that if we want to go forward with this, there will be a lot of pushback from building owners and people who will have to bear that cost in order to comply with those laws. >> yes, they build a community within themselves and they could monitor it themselves. a second thing is, the rent is outrageous for what you get. on the private ones, there is no subsidy allowed? how does that work, you know? to reduce the rent to like 30% of income. >> and private buildings there are subsidies that exist.
the reality is that, based on the way rent control is in san francisco, when the tenant moves out, the landlord can put the rental at any price they can get, it moves closer to market rate. when people first year about the kind of work that i do and talk about sros, they say it's great that you work with affordable housing. the first thing i say is, is not affordable. it's available housing stock. $700-$900 a month is not affordable housing. >> not what you get for an 8x10. you get better benefits in jail. that is sad.
that we do this to our fellow citizens. >> 30,000 people in san francisco. >> chair: we will go to ken stein. >> i want to personally thank the presenters today and to point out that even though we in this room and in this community are a bubble of disability and none of this surprises us, the reality is that this discussion is a quantum leap from anything the city has had. even in the most recent years, we were not able to get disability demographics. we always staff about accessibility, and they would say next time. a number of people with disability in sros.
the fact that we now have senior action network, the last 10 years would could not even get large print. oh yeah, they would see us there. there was never a demographic. if you don't have disability demographics you are not at the public policy planning table. i want to welcome jessica lehman to our community. she has been a leader in the alameda -- for many years. she's here totally on board with senior and disability action. it is huge. welcome. in the last survey we had from
hsa, was an astounding percentage of seniors that get out of the rooms per month, 3-4 times a month, 60-70%. an amazing number. something a revelation to me. in 2005-06, i was on a panel in tenderloin. there was an elderly chinese woman in the room. the third person to speak with the police officer. he said, how many people in this room can understand what i am saying? four people raised their hand. we had been certain there for 25 minutes. people are polite.
40% of seniors will not hear what you're saying. just because we are communicating does not mean people are hearing. the last thing, i urge you to bring this to the long-term care coordinating council. housing is not on the five-year plan. we asked them to be on it. what are the priorities for seniors and people with disabilities? sro housing needs to be there. i urge to reach out to that important planning table as well. >> chair: thank you everyone for your ongoing effort. we look forward to working with you to move the settings forward in the future. we are now adjourned for a 10 minute break. we will return. thank you. >> >> >>
>> chair: you are back with the mayor's disability council friday, november 16, 2012. thank you for rejoining us. our next agenda item is an action item. it is the co-chair election. for the position of co-chair, wendy james has successfully executed her leadership role for one year. her position is now up for a vote. we will accept nominations. offered by oneself were nominated by one's colleagues.
the first to cue in is co-chair james. >> co-chair: i would like to nominate myself and continue as co-chair for another year and continue to learn how to co-chair. >> (off mic) >> chair: okay. we have one nomination, and one second. do we have any further nominations for the co-chair position? >> yes. >> chair: roland? >> councilmember wong: i like to dominate idell wilson.
nomination? are there any further nominations? seeing none, okay, this is where we have to reserve the public comment. we have a motion on the floor. we have a second. do we have any public comment? check the bridge line, not working. seeing none, we have ballots passing around. >> (off mic) >> chair: all in favor for the re-election of co-chair james, for a second year, say aye, a
raise your right hand. >> aye. >> chair: by unanimous vote, co-chair has been reelected for a second year. do you wish to give a speech? >> i will continue to learn. by mail. so you can continue to teach me, and tap my arm, when i'm doing something wrong. i'm sure carla and joanna and everyone else will keep me in-line. >> i can still tune into you guys. i happened to tune in to a
meeting, a committee meeting a couple of weeks ago and i called in beforehand. i had a feed in to your committee meeting. you guys are on stage all the time. >> okay, kim, you have to get the bridge line working. i need her help. >> chair: in three months there will be an election for my chair, vacated at the end of the year. we are looking at some action items. our next item, action items, proposed amendments. the m d c bylawys.
should go over them, one by one, vote for them. does the staff wish to identify the proposed amendments? >> i would be willing to do an introduction one at a time/ there has been discussion, set term limits. the appropriate thing is to bring it to the council for discussion and action. staff has written these proposed changes for the sake of discussion, not anything carved in stone. or not adopted. so, currently, the only thing that says, in the current bylaws for chairs, there shall
be two co-chairs the service officers of the council. the council shall elect these officers. officer terms shall be one year. it is not say - the terms may be staggered by not less than three months. the idea was not to have another election for a co-chair right away so we have a job like jul was talking about. the idea was to have term limits, recommendation was too strong a word. co-chair shall serve a maximum of two terms.
does anyone want to make a motion? if not, the bylaws can stay as they are. >> chair: why do we break down the proposed amendments one by one. article 3a, proposed amendment that cochairs can serve a maximum of two consecutive terms. we need a motion for approval. a second and then we have discussion. >> i will like a point of clarification. >> chair: councilmember supanich. >> does that prevent someone from taking off a term and
coming back? >> the bylaws would be silent and would not prevent someone from taking a year off as currently written. >> all right. >> chair: because it says "consecutive". >> right. >> chair: councilmember wilson? >> councilmember wilson: is that four years? two. >> i would like to make a motion to adopt it. >> i will second the. >> chair: co-chair james/ ? okay. we had two questions. i have a question. we have not had a motion to approve is yet or a second.
did we? who made a motion to approve? co-chair james, councilmember supanich. now we are open for discussion and public comment. have a question about the intent of the proposed amendment. i am suspecting the intent by the author is to encourage and engage more councilmember leadership opportunities. what would happen if that were not the result? let's hope that would not be the case if that comes into approval. maybe that option, discussion? councilmember wilson?
>> i do not understand what you just said. i do not understand it. if no one wants if n o one wa ntsto step up? >> chair: let me make an attempt to clarify. from my experience in the past, attempting to promote more leadership opportunities for colleagues, i've noticed that a lot of times it is tough to initiate that the person who proposes a leadership role. that is my concern. if they were persons not able or willing to fulfill the leadership role, do you put the council at risk by making a maximum of two consecutive
terms. does that make sense? that is a question i have. councilmember supanich. >> i like to see a system by which people are prepared for the post. that might be a requirement that they chair one of the subcommittees for a period of six months or a year. it might be that there is a period for which the exiting co-chair and entering co-chair are together, mentoring for a few months so some of us don't feel that we are thrown to the wolves. and also not intimidated for volunteering or nominate themselves. the process of mentoring mic event that situation from happening.
>> chair: may interpret that as a from the amendment? >> yes that is a friendly amendment. >> chair: don't let me put words in your mouth. basically we are saying co-chairs conservative maximum of two consecutive terms provided they have completed a six-month term leading a council committee. >> what i want to see is to encourage people- because right now, it seems like we have gone time without a councilmember chairing a subcommittee. to ensure that those roles are filled, people get confident taking steps getting to the top rather than starting at the top. i want a system where we are
collecting on a regular basis committee chairs and members. so i'm not sure how i want to amend this. or this should be a separate motion completely. i am trying to address their concerns by saying that there are things we can do to prevent that from happening. i don't think i want to amend the motion as it stands. i want to see the motion passed. i speak in favor of the motion as it stands. >> chair: i think it's a good option. we have two people in the queue. suggested amendment. councilmember wilson then wong. >> you don't want to be dumped somewhere. you want to be mentored. that is different from the amendment. maybe we can add to that in our executive --
when you do take a leadership role mentoring maybe two months before the person comes into the office of the other person. i would hope that would not happen, but no one wants to take the leadership roles. that's why we take the seats to encourage other people to take leadership positions. i hope we never have that and every one of us would love the opportunity to do something as dynamic as you have done for three different mayors. >> chair: thank you. councilmember wong followed by mr. stein. >> councilmember wong: i can understand everyone's feeling about taking a leadership. i was a person not into leading committees.
slowly but surely, like i said earlier, i'm slowly getting up to that rank. i was just appointed to the m d c's physical assets committee, my little training. maybe in the future i can become the chair of the mayor's disability council. i like the idea, for sure. >> chair: mr. stein? >> yes. i don't see any conflict between staying two consecutive terms, and the council setting up whatever rules it wants to have informally of the discussion in executive committee.
we think there should be a two month mentoring program for someone interested in serving on the council. we should make that three months or six months of chairing the committee. we don't need to decide that now. it is not something that appears in the bylaws. in a sense incorporating the concept gives you more freedom rather than trying to thrash this particular concept out here at this meeting. there is nothing to prevent the council from having a role. cr rule. >> chair: is there anyone uncomfortable with the proposed amendment as it is written?
>> maybe i can talk a little bit about it. >> chair: i want to announce you. >> i think it's good -- to have different councilmembers take a leadership. i don't know how to word it, sorry. as far as making a motion to make this change. i don't know how to word it. maybe staff can assist us. >> chair: director johnson? >> councilmember wong, wasn't your intent to make a motion to adopt the proposed
amendment as written to set a term limit of two consecutive terms? >> yes. >> the motion is already on the floor. >> it sounds like you are affirming the motion and a second. >> technically speaking, the friendly amendment has to be withdrawn at this point. >> it is withdrawn. >> i like to call the question. >> chair: so we have a public comment within motion in the second. the discussion is complete? we agree on that. seeing no public comment, we vote. all those in favor?
of the proposed amendment say aye, and raise your right hand. >> aye. >> those opposed, say nay and raise your right hand. abstained? >> chair: the motion passes. now we are on to article 3. number b >> yeah, it passed! i was afraid we would get out of here saturday. >> chair: my last duty as co-chair, if one co-chair cannot attend
one or more meetings the other co-chair can appoint a temporary replacement. we are open for discussion. >> i motion. >> councilmember wilson seconds, and councilmember supanich has discussion. >> i do. i don't have a problem with the cochair choosing someone at the discretion - the way it is worded, if one cochair cannot attend one or more meetings, i think he would be okay for the other cochair to appoint
someone for a month but beyond that, i would like to see fuller council involvement, say someone is to take a leave of absence, so the whole council can provide input, and unnecessarily have a person chosen for a long-term. if you give me a second, i will try to come up with wording. >> chair: that makes sense to me. it would ensure the value of the council's vote and who the leader is, not just one person. for more than one month. >> should we change the wording
to one month? or the current month? would that be easier? instead of one or more meetings. >> chair: tag a line that says, not to exceed one month duration. >> what about, not to exceed two consecutive meetings. >> i would be happy with that. >> that would be a regular meeting and an executive meeting. >> >> chair: could you repeat that mr. stein? >> if no cochair is present at a meeting, the meeting can be chaired by another member of the council and that is a loosey-goosey term.